Son of a Gun: More Celebrities Than Ever Are Carrying Firearms ...

[spin]

Monday September 27, 2010 10:50 AM EDT


From left: Marc Anthony, Robert De Niro and Donald Trump

They might not be dangerous, but they're armed.

Seeking an added layer of protection, more high-profile celebrities are seeking permits to carry guns in New York City, according to New York's Daily News.

Among the big names licensed to pack heat: Marc Anthony, Robert De Niro, Donald Trump, and his son, Donald Jr., Mets third baseman David Wright, and Martha Stewart's daughter, radio host Alexis Stewart.

Anthony, 42, has a special permit that allows him to carry a loaded weapon in the city, and has a similar permit for Nassau County, where he and Jennifer Lopez have a $2 million home in Brookville.

***snip***

Gun permit aren't easy, or cheap, to get. Applicants must show that they often carry large amounts of cash or valuables, or that they are being threatened in some way. And the application alone costs a nonrefundable $340.

Despite the rise in applications from celebrities, the number of permits issued in New York City is actually down by 2.4 percent this year, to 2,093.
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20429404,00.html

Isn't it nice to know that the people we value the most, our celebrities, have the opportunity to own and carry firearms in Mayor Bloomburg's New York City. They are so much more deserving than the average person living and working in The Big Apple.

[pscot]

1. It's a sign of the behavioural sink

Or a kool fashion accessory.

[lob1]

2. I don't count the kids of celebrities as celebrities themselves,

so you've named 4 celebrities carrying guns. Out of 2,093 permits, that a pretty pathetic amount to single out celebs as some kind of menace and more deserving than the average joe. To me, it looks like 2,089 average joes are better armed than most celebrities.

[TheWraith]

4. New York City doesn't issue permits to average joes.

The only people who get carry permits in New York City are retired police, the wealthy, and the powerful.

[spin]

8. Sounds like the middle ages to me ...

The rich and powerful get to own weapons, the serfs and slaves go without.

[Euromutt]

81. Or Japan under the Tokugawa shogunate (nt)

[proteus_lives]

11. Just how the gun-control crowd like it.

Whither they admit or not, much of the push behind gun control is limiting the rights of "those people".

[hendo]

80. but they never have enough cajones to admit it openly. nt

[spin]

6. I believe the list is much larger ...

Singer Marc Anthony is one of dozens of celebs, millionaires and high-profile athletes authorized to carry a concealed weapon in the city, records show.emphasis added

Other big names licensed to carry a gun include actor Robert De Niro, shock jock Howard Stern and supermarket mogul John Catsimatidis. Billionaire Donald Trump and his son, Donald Jr.; celebrity lawyer David Breitbart, and artificial-heart inventor Robert Jarvik can also carry steel, police records reveal.

Mets third-baseman David Wright has a permit to keep a gun in his city penthouse. Martha Stewart's daughter, radio host Alexis Stewart, also has a permit.

Not everyone scores. Bernie Madoff's son Andrew couldn't persuade the NYPD to issue him a gun permit - not even to keep a firearm in his home.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/27/2010-09-27_celebrities_seeking_pistol_permits_on_the_rise_in_the_city_lifestyles_of_rich_n_.html#ixzz10lqby1wE

I should point out that I have absolutely no problem with a celebrity legally owning a firearm or having a concealed carry permit. I live in Florida and I own a number of firearms and have a concealed carry permit and I not a celebrity nor will I ever be one.

I disagree with it being so difficult for the eaverage citizen in New York to obtain permission to obtain a firearm. Why should the application cost a nonrefundable $340? Why should a person have to show a reason to obtain a license?

And for those who might try to attribute New York City's falling violent crime rate to their gun control policies, let me point out the that basically the same draconian laws were in effect when the violent crime rate hit its peak in the 1990s.

[safeinOhio]

9. Most big city mayors support

strict gun control laws because that is what the voters in big cities want. That is how they get elected. The opposite is true in rural areas. You get to elect your own politicians, that is how the country works. I have no complaints about how gun laws are in other states unless their guns become a big problem in my state. I am afraid that Ohio handguns have become a problem in other states. I have a Ted Strickland bumper sticker on my car as I vote for Democratic politicians 98% of the time.

[TheWraith]

12. The Teabagger candidates are just doing what their voters want, too.

That doesn't make it okay. In fact, we have the constitution specifically to say that some things are extremely not okay. Like making or enforcing laws against someone's rights to expression, belief, and security. Campaigning against those is simply wrong. It might be popular to rail at guns in violent cities, but the idea was also popular of rounding up Muslims and putting them into camps post 9/11.

And shit, 98% of the time? What's wrong with you the other 2%? :P

[safeinOhio]

15. I am against most everything tea baggers

stand for, however, I support their right to their opinions and accept that some think the way they do. I have found that trying to change their minds by bitching and insulting them only makes them crazier.
I have lived in urban areas and way out in the country. Two different worlds and both have reasons for the way they think. Neither is better than the other, just different. I accept both and can see why they think as they do. I'm not going side with either extreme on gun issues. I am willing to look at how to preserve the rights of law abiding citizen to own and carry handguns, I do. I also support ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I don't think either is exclusive of the other. The zealots at the extremes on both sides hate me.

Like my father, I'm a Democrat, I vote for em or against em.

[spin]

13. In Florida Miami seems to have a good number of politicians ..

who oppose RKBA. In other regions such as the Tampa Bay Area, politicians were not as opposed to RKBA. (Note: this is just a quick opinion, not based on any research.)

There is no doubt that firearms are very popular in the rural areas of Florida and the wise rural politician supports RKBA.

[SteveM]

107. Then there's that thing called federalism and the Fourteenth...

"Most big city mayors support

strict gun control laws because that is what the voters in big cities want. That is how they get elected."

Perhaps that is how they get elected, but that is how they are in violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. You cannot violate the privileges and immunities of a U.S. citizen no matter how big your city is, or how large your electoral victory. The same applies for ALL the amendments, as we found out during the Civil Rights Era.

[SteveM]

106. You want more? Even gun-banner Bloomberg has armed guards...

...it just isn't cool to carry personally, 'ya know?

[old mark]

3. Sometimes check the anti-gun politicians who own and carry guns,

or who have armed bodyguards...you don't need one, though...(I already have several...;-) )



rec - to counter the automatic unrecs for any gun post.

mark

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. The $340 will break them.

Yeah, right.:rofl:

[spin]

7. Well it definitely would deter many average citizens ...

especially since it's non refundable and the chances of Joe or Jane Citizen being able to convince some bureaucrat behind a desk of his/her "need" to own or carry a firearm is probably slim.

My idea of a fair system exists in Florida. I don't have to apply for a license to own a firearm and I definitely don't have to kiss someone's ass to buy one. I don't have to register my firearms. I merely have to pass an NICS background check when I buy a firearm from a dealer.

I have to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, but it costs far less than $340 and is good for 7 years. Once again, I don't have to convince anyone that I have a need to carry a concealed weapon. If I have a clean record and meet the requirements such as having attended a class on gun safety, I get my permit.

[TheCowsCameHome]

103. Average citizens like the ones pictured and named in the OP?

Suuuuuure.

[spin]

114. Of course not. Those people are far better than the average citizen ...

after all it isn't easy to become rich or to be a celebrity. Little people should appreciate the true superiority of people like Donald Trump, Robert De Niro and Howard Stern including their obvious higher reasoning power. They have the brains and the ability to properly handle a dangerous item like a handgun, while the average citizen in New York City can't be trusted with such responsibility. :sarcasm:

Once again, I should state that I see no reason why the rich or the celebrities shouldn't be allowed to own firearms, just as every other honest and sane citizen with a clean record should be able to own them.

But it is obvious that NYC has set up a obstacle course to gun ownership that involves many hurdles to climb over before you can own a firearm in The Big Apple. The average citizen has little chance at being successful.

To all those people who believe that this is a fair system and no one should be allowed to own a handgun in such a densely populated area, I have one question. Why should be rich and privileged be different? Why are you willing to agree that they should have privileges than you do? Are you a second class or inferior citizen?

[TheCowsCameHome]

117. It was you who referenced these celebrities in the OP.

They can easily afford $340. That was my reply. Nothing more. Anything else is speculation on your part.

[spin]

120. I have a lot more experience with poorer people than I do rich people ...

or celebrities.

I don't believe that any speculation is involved on my part when I say that NYC has laws designed to prevent the lower class of citizens from owning firearms.

New York's permitting system itself could come under scrutiny as these issues in criminal cases are litigated.

Mayor Bloomberg and other city officials have said that the Supreme Court decision does not threaten New York City's regulations, which require that all gun owners go through a lengthy and costly licensing process. Yet, some gun rights proponents and defense lawyers say that New York's licensing system is so burdensome as to be unconstitutional.

"An average poor guy who's particularly vulnerable to burglary or break-ins is going to have a hard time getting a license," said a legal aid attorney, Steven Wasserman, who wrote the Second Amendment motion that many legal aid attorneys are now using.

It can require multiple trips to One Police Plaza, a wait of more than four months, and fees that can reach more than $1,000 over a decade. Some criminal defense lawyers also say that the requirement that applicants possess "good moral character" is too arbitrary.
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/gun-rights-of-new-yorkers-may-rest-on-case-of-hot/83043/

Out of curiosity, do you think it's fair that the rich, powerful and connected can afford the time, effort and expense to obtain firearm licenses while the lower classes (who probably have far more need for self defense) can not?

In our nation is one citizen better or more equal than another based solely on wealth or fame?

[TheCowsCameHome]

121. I don't necessarily think it's fair,

but life isn't fair, anyway.

The wealthy will generally wield more clout than the average working stiff, and that won't change in my lifetime.

Play the cards you're deal and make the best of it.

Life to too short to be consumed by envy. I envy no one.

[spin]

122. I do get a fair deal in Florida ...

when it comes to firearm ownership. So do rich people and celebrities and people who are poorer than I.

All an individual needs is the money to pay for the firearm and the cost of the NICS background check to purchase a firearm in Florida. There is no license or registration involved. I don't have to kiss some bureaucrat's ass to convince him that I have a need for a firearm.

If I decide that I want to carry my handgun concealed while I am in public, I do have to apply for a license. The state needs my fingerprints and a photo and runs a background check on me to be sure that I have a clean record. The cost is very reasonable, the fee for the license is $117 plus the cost of a concealed weapons class (if necessary) and possible incidental charges such as a fee to get a passport photo. Since Florida has "shall issue" concealed carry, I don't need to have a good reason to have a carry permit. No sheriff or bureaucrat interviews me.

The concealed weapons permit is good for 7 years and than can be renewed for another 7 years for $65 and the cost of a new passport photo. Another fair thing about the concealed weapons permit that is I can carry a Taser, a tear gas gun, a knife or a billie concealed if I choose.

This is the way it should be. When it comes to owning a firearm or carrying one concealed in Florida, Donald Trump and I are on a level playing field. He probably has a Florida concealed weapons permit and that's perfectly fine with me.

You insinuated that I an consumed with envy. Obviously you misunderstood my point. I'm far from rich but I'm happy. Obviously, I would like to see more equity in our society with a much larger middle class and a smaller poor class. That's one reason why I am a Democrat.

I do agree that the wealthy will always get preferential treatment in many situations and that's part of life. But I feel justified in opposing the obviously blatant gun laws in New York City.

And I will finish by asking you a question. Why should I as a citizen in Florida have more rights than most citizens in New York City?

[TheCowsCameHome]

123. Dunno....

OTOH, perhaps NYC citizens have more rights than Floridians in other matters? :shrug: I don't know. I don't live in either place to be able to make a comparison.

Life isn't always fair............

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't mean to imply that I thought you were consumed with envy - only that too many folks are

[spin]

125. There is no doubt that living in The Big Apple has advantages ...

better restaurants, entertainment and nightclubs etc.

But there are disadvantages such as bedbugs.



I agree that there appears to be a lot of hate and envy directed toward the rich in our country. I guess we are both lucky that we don't fall prey to these common emotions. In reality, many of the upper class are probably far more unhappy than we are.

[PavePusher]

91. Can you please post a scan of the bill you paid for your First Amendment application

No rush, I'm sure you have it filed away somewhere, amIright?

[SteveM]

108. No, it's just being denied the RKBA. The money is not the issue.

Got it right, now?

[lawodevolution]

10. It's shameful that the government of New York

still thinks that the lives of some people are worth more than the lives of other people.

[spin]

14. I think it's just human nature ...

give people power or wealth or celebrity and many develop an elitist attitude that they are more entitled and more intelligent than the average person.

It's been this way throughout history.

[spin]

127. In many other countries this would be normal ...

But we live in the United States and the 2nd Amendment states the the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is extremely important second only to our freedom of press, religion and rights to peacefully assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances (the First Amendment).

The Supreme Court has recently agreed.

[Kennah]

16. It's Not Celebs Who'll Be Needing Guns If the Teabaggers Take Over ...

... it's progressives.

Former Senator Phil Gramm once said, "We'll be hunting Democrats with dogs."

Gramm was normal compared to the current batch of teabaggers, and I have to wonder if there aren't teabaggers out there who will try it.

[The Green Manalishi]

128. Which is why I am always amazed at progressives who wish to disarm other progressives.

I think some 'baggers wank to the Turner Diaries; I have no intention being any less well armed than the neo brownshirts who would love to see me hang.

Edited to add 'Welcome to D.U.'

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneshooter]

22. Fine with me.

Just don't try to force your ideas into my life.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RSillsbee]

30. Would you care to elaborate?

While I support your right to formulate and express your own opinion on this subject, I’d appreciate it if you’d help me understand your rationale.

Most of the country allows legal gun owners (key distinction there) to carry handguns, concealed or otherwise on their person in the course of their daily activities, three states require no permitting process whatsoever and none of the dire predictions of the Brady crowd appear to be coming true.

No rivers of blood during rush hour, no shoot outs over latte at Starbucks, You’re still more likely to have a massive coronary at Culver’s than get shot and crime is at historically low numbers.

So how is my lawfully carried handgun a threat to you?

[The_Commonist]

39. Not particularly...

But thanks for asking!

[spin]

31. You are used to living in a city with draconian gun laws ...

Obviously you oppose firearm ownership and especially people carrying firearms concealed.

I find your comment,"And don't give me that pussy-boy bullshit about "then only the criminals will have guns."
very interesting. Who do you think will be carrying guns?

If you ever journey to Florida to enjoy the attractions, you will find yourself in a state when currently there are 754,548 concealed weapons permits. If you walk into a McDonald's restaurant or walk down a street in Tampa or Orlando, there is an excellent chance that you will pass a person with a legally concealed firearm. As you are driving on the freeways, you should be aware that many of the cars who you pass have loaded handguns inside in glove boxes or holsters under the seat.

Strangely enough, Florida has not turned into the Wild West and those who have firearms in their cars or legally carry concealed are not running around shooting people for the hell of it. If that was true, tourists would avoid Florida and go to California with their stricter gun laws.

But if indeed, you wish to make it "more difficult for people to have guns" do you support the rich and privileged and the celebrities having that privilege? Are they far more important and worthwhile than you are?

If I had your beliefs, I would be raising hell that some "special" citizens get to own and carry firearms, especially if they are rich or celebrities.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

75. Damn, I didn't get a chance to reply ...

before your insult was deleted. I got to read it just before it disappeared.

But I could point out that many of the people that I personally know who have concealed weapons permits are retired or active duty police or military. Obviously, when you referred to them and 700,000 other Floridan concealed weapons permits holders as "pussies", you violated the rules. Stereotyping is not an indication of education or fairness.

Note that if you were attempting to get me to reply with a counter insult, I don't play that game. I feel that my arguments are strong enough to withstand insults, and if they are not then I will reconsider my position.

[rrneck]

65. Do you have

a self defense solution for someone who is assaulted by another not using a gun, but rather a knife, club, fists or feet?

[Hoyt]

18. Rich or Poor, we ought to be outraged about folks carrying guns in public.

Just the opinion of someone who likes to go into Chuck-E-Cheese, bars, churches, playgrounds, concerts, museums, etc., without those who think they need to be armed to survive in public and/or are just looking for an opportunity to play cowboy.

[proteus_lives]

19. Why?

I don't get outraged when I see a gun in public.

I don't understand why people do.

If I had to hazard a guess, I would say a poor understanding of firearms and their use/ethics.

Maybe it's because I grew-up around guns. They don't scare me.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneshooter]

25. Then you believe that the Police should be disarmed?

"But, they shouldn't be carried in public. No need to, and not good for our society."

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoyt]

32. A jokester? I'm fine with most police carrying guns -- they are trained, monitored and accountable.

[spin]

47. Many of the people that I know who have concealed carry permits ...

can out shoot most cops. In many areas cops only qualify once a year. People with concealed carry permits often shoot monthly or weekly.

I will agree that cops have more training, but to be fair cops actually go out looking for and fighting crime. People with carry permits only use them in situations where they or someone else is facing serious injury or death at the hands of an attacker.

The classes a person takes to obtain a concealed carry permit makes it very obvious that the permit holder is accountable for his actions.

[Hoyt]

55. Qualify for what? Paper targets ain't quite the same -- but God Bless.

I don't want toters "protecting" me or society. Most toters aren't trained or prepared for it.

[X_Digger]

61. Paper targets are what most cops qualify with, too..

Damn those untrained police! *snort*

[spin]

66. Most police qualify on paper targets ...

I agree that paper targets are not realistic training for an actual gun fight. The fact remains that most police qualify once a year on a range using paper targets.

Many people who carry concealed are far better shooters than police as they take concealed carry seriously and practice on a regular basis.

Please present some stories to backup your statement that "most toters aren't trained or prepared for it"

updated due to HTML error

[Hoyt]

68. Most police get more training than you guys. And, they get training everyday using restraint, etc.

You don't. Worse, you think you are better prepared. Hence, my concern.

[spin]

72. Police are trained to fight crime ...

They actively and aggressively attempt to apprehend criminals and to proactively stop crime in their jurisdiction.

People who have carry permits are not law enforcement. They are authorized to use their weapons if attacked in a manner that threatens severe bodily injury or death.

You are comparing apples and oranges. I have a concealed carry permit and I, in no way consider myself as well trained as a police officer. I don't have to be as I am a mere citizen and my legal use of a firearm is extremely limited.

[X_Digger]

73. *snort* You really don't know any cops, do you?

My family has two and I have a couple of friends in law enforcement (one White Rock PD cop, one Knoxville, TN sergeant).

In White Rock, firearms training takes 1/2 a day for three weeks (one week each for pistol, shotgun, and rifle), and supplemental weapon training for CQB or SRT training, if desired (how to use a flash bang grenade, a breaching device, etc). 20 hours or so per weapon for the main three.

Yearly, they qualify at the WPD range, with paper targets at 7, 15, and 25 yards. They get three chances to pass.

That's typical of the cops I know. They get more continuing education of forms and changes to laws than they do with weapons.

Go see if your local police department has a defined academy (not all do). Ask them to let you observe. You're in for quite a shock.

Most CHL licensees I know practice easily three times as much as your average cop. That's not a ding on cops, they have a hell of a lot of stuff to keep up with. They're more likely to have to understand their new breathalyzer unit than get their score on the range up.

[SteveM]

110. You may have a misconception as to the purpose of carrying...

The vast majority of folks who carry (concealed or otherwise) are doing so for self-defense. "Protecting" you is not their chief goal, so they don't have the need for law enforcement training. There are (and have been) instances where civilians who had weapons on them were able to defend others under attack, but the main reason is SELF-DEFENSE, not the social policy of defending you.

[krispos42]

131. The problem isn't licenced concealed-carriers that are packing...

...it's the unlicenced career criminals. Your policies don't affect them at all, and they commit the majority of murders. The murders committed by a CCW permitee while carrying concealed in public I doubt make it into the triple digits every year. And if you only count cold-blooded murder (as opposed to "I shot the fucker that was smashing in my car window") it might not even be that much.

[oneshooter]

48. No, but you made a blanket statement that needed to be qualified. n/t

[Hoyt]

51. Are you a toter who thinks he is better trained and has better judgment than law-enforcement

in these situations? If so, that's one of my concerns.

If you are currently a police officer, cool -- I think you are trained, motivated, and accountable enough to carry in public.

[oneshooter]

118. I am not a"toter" and I conceder the term as an insult.

I hold a CHL in Texas and shoot regularly against LEO's here. Most all of them agree with the CHL laws, and licensing. I went through the same background checks as a LEO. With my Texas CHL I don't need a call to NICS when I purchase a firearm. I am not a LEO, my weapon is for the defense of myself and my family. My license is accepted in 32 states.

You got a problem with the Texas CHL program, then stay out of Texas.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Euromutt]

79. Private citizens are more accountable than law enforcement personnel

They're actually likely to be criminally prosecuted if they shoot someone.

[PavePusher]

92. Accountable? Monitored? Trained?

Unfortunately lacking in all to many departments these days, if you watch the news...

Just curious, how much "training" do you think is needed for effective self-defense?

[Glassunion]

119. You say "most" police. Why not "all"?

Which police would you see disarmed? Or did you mis-speak?

[proteus_lives]

40. I missed it. What was said?

[cleanhippie]

27. Gun toter worshipers? Really?

Is that what I am?

[spin]

21. That's a common misconception ...

and if I didn't have a concealed weapons permit and know a number of people that do, I might agree with you.

Many of the people that I know who have permits and carry on a regular basis are retired members of the police or military.

Most never expect to ever have to use their concealed weapon but they realize that the possibility does exist and they are smart enough to know that despite all the training you might have, you are at a serious disadvantage if you are disarmed and you find yourself facing an armed opponent intent on seriously hurting or killing you

They practice "situational awareness" and avoid situations that might lead to confrontation. The best way to survive a gun fight is to not be there. They realize that they are not police nor do they play vigilante. They just merely go about their daily business and the only difference between them and everybody else is that they carry a weapon.

Rarely a person who has a licensed concealed weapon or carries openly finds himself/herself in a situation that justifies the use of their firearm and in most cases they use it properly. Many times the situation ends with no shots fired.

One thing that you have to consider is that there have been mass shootings in restaurants and churches. A person with a concealed weapon permit has sometimes been present and stopped the killer from killing more people.

I know a good number of people who have carry permits and none of them strike me as cowboy wannabes.

[Hoyt]

23. A decent post. But, I'm concerned when 5 toters open fire in a restaurant, church or playground.

I or my children don't need to be in the crossfire of a bunch of overly-excited, un-recently-trained people with guns strapped on their legs. I'm sorry, even x-police or x-military may not be trained well enough for that. Besides, a military barrage is not what's needed in the situation you have decided to prepare for.

Too many people carrying guns -- just waiting for something to happen -- is a concern. And one we should be more concerned about.

[cleanhippie]

28. And why would they do that?

Why would 5 people who went through the process to get a CCW just pull their weapons and start shooting? It makes no sense, man.

[lawodevolution]

29. Except more people are carrying guns than ever due to Concealed carry

And there are fewer accidents and lower crime than the 80s and early 90s before CCW became widespread.

[Hoyt]

33. I don't think it is because a bunch of cowboys are armed.

[lawodevolution]

76. Didn't you recently post a comment that people who carry

Are going be shooting everyone? I pointed out that more are carrying and less people are being shot now.

[SteveM]

112. Haven't you set up a straw man, here? Some kind of "cowboy" stereotype?

[spin]

35. O.K. that's a great argument ...

if you can support it with incidents where "overly-excited, un-recently-trained people with guns strapped on their legs." shot some innocent people in a restaurant, church or playground.

Put your Google-Fu to work. Let's see three or four incidences where this happened. Hell, I'll settle for just two.

I would also suggest that if you and your children are caught in a situation where some mentally deranged individual decides to rack up a high score of "kills" in a restaurant you just happen to be in, you would be far better off to have an armed X-police or X-military to save your ass. At a minimum, he might offer you a chance to escape.

Of course you can wait for the police to arrive and call for a SWAT team. They will cordon off the area and attempt to negotiate. Of course, by that time you and your family might be dead.

Sometimes life comes at you fast.

[Hoyt]

42. Spin, I don't want untrained people defending me. It's really that simple.

That means you, my neighbor, or the next guy who comes along and thinks he's doing society a favor by packing in supposed preparation for whatever the heck it is they think is going to happen in public.

Besides, I don't want people playing judge and jury -- much less cowboy -- just because they are packing. That should be left to the police and courts.

I'll take my chances with my family and the police. Unless you are competently trained, I don't really want your help in the unlikely event something happens. I don't think it will turn out like you expect (and the other 4 toters who'll be whipping out their guns). We need to impede this trend toward singing the praise of toting in public.

Just my opinion, of course.

[spin]

77. I understand ...

but at one time people felt the world was flat. They were wrong.

What you say is entirely logical and I can see why you believe it. Therefore, you should be able to Google the question and find numerous examples where a person with a concealed carry permit played cowboy.

If you try and you can't then I suggest that you consider that you might just be wrong.

Now I have no problem with your decision to not carry a firearm. However, if you and I find ourselves in a situation where you or your family are in danger of serious injury or getting killed from an attacker, I may just attempt to help you out.

If I succeed, you are under no obligation to thank me. Hopefully the situation will end with no shots fired as it often does.

[slackmaster]

84. You think people, including police, carry guns to protect YOU?

That's just plain wrong.

[X_Digger]

41. Your concerns aren't founded in reality..

Please, find me just one case where a concealed carry license holder shot someone in a crossfire.

There are ~6M licensees, and we've had concealed carry in a number of states for twenty plus years. Surely if your supposition were close to reality, there'd be at least one case.

[Hoyt]

44. Probably 5,999,987 have never been involved in a "situation." So your guns aren't needed in public.

Can't keep up with you guys. Will have to check back tomorrow.

[spin]

54. God forbid that you just happen to be one of the 13 ...

people who could have used their weapon to defend their life or health.

Just imagine that you are some poor female who ends up raped and strangled to death by some criminal when had she been allowed to carry her concealed weapon she might have deterred the attack possibly without a shot being fired. Imagine being her husband or children at her funeral.

Plus I would suggest that far more than 13 people out of 6,000,000 have successfully used their concealed firearm to deter an attack.

[X_Digger]

59. Ahh, the 'need' canard..

What other civil rights should one have to demonstrate a 'need' for?

[friendly_iconoclast]

87. I must have missed his confirmation as Secretary of Need.

Perhaps there's a link to the videos of this event?

Snerk.

[friendly_iconoclast]

88. It's tomorrow. Still no examples of crossfire incidents.

No doubt our interlocutor is still busy researching in the reference department of The Library of It Stands To Reason....

[jazzhound]

99. Either that or he's wading through propaganda

pamphlets in The Library of It's Only Logical.

[Bold Lib]

90. Bill of Rights confused with the Bill of Needs once again. Oh, by the way

there are approximately 2 MILLION defensive gun uses by law abiding citizens every year. And, unlike your previously incited claim, I will source mine.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

[jazzhound]

98. I imagine that many will dismiss the number of defensive

gun uses found by the NSDS (National Self Defense Survey) based on the source. So let's go to the original source of the information --- Dr. Gary Kleck. Here's the voluntary disclosure he opens with in "Targeting Guns -- Firearms and Their Control":

The author is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and CommonCause, among other politically liberal organizations. He is a lifelong registered Democrat, as well as a contributor to liberal Democratic candidates. He is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of, or contributor to the National Rifle Association, Handgun Control Inc. nor any other advocacy organization, nor has he received funding for research from any such organization.

Kleck's honorable position w/regard to funding his research stands in sharp contrast with pro "control" "researchers" who have been only too happy to accept funding from anti-gun advocacy groups.

[proteus_lives]

43. Toters?

:eyes:

Actually, if someone misuses a firearm, they become a criminal. Not the same but you knew that already.

All I'm hearing from you is "I'm afraid so I think other people should be stripped of their rights."

Still have given any reason though.

[PavePusher]

93. Where/when has this happened?

Frequency?

Most individual civic parameters?

[Spoonman]

104. Your fears have ZERO basis in fact

Please list ONE, just ONE incident where your scenario has EVER occurred!

[SteveM]

111. Can you provide us with an example of...

"I'm concerned when 5 toters open fire in a restaurant, church or playground. I or my children don't need to be in the crossfire of a bunch of overly-excited, un-recently-trained people with guns strapped on their legs."

Has an instance of this occurred so that we may examine the circumstances?

[oneshooter]

24. And yiu rely on the Police to "Defend and Protect"you.

Again thats fine with me. Just as long as you don't try forcing your ideas on me.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoyt]

34. The few times I've needed protecting I took care of it with my machete at my own home.

Don't feel the need to carry it or a gun in public. And it really should be restricted for the good of society.

[spin]

37. That's great ...

I have also used a machete for self defense and fortunately its mere presence stopped what could have been a nasty encounter.

However, as time passed, I learned that it is not wise to bring a machete to a gun fight.

[Hoyt]

46. That's the thing. To me, I really don't expect or prepare for a gun fight. So I go unarmed.

Believe it or not, gunfights ain't likely to happen . . . . . .unless we are all walking around packing in bars, churches, parks, etc., waiting for one to happen.

[spin]

64. That's your choice ...

Many people go unarmed everyday.

A few chose to be armed. So far the data doesn't show us to be a serious problem.

You do your thing, I'll do mine.

[PavePusher]

94. I carry a gun...

so that I don't have to carry a machete.

Besides, bladed weapons require considerably more training than forearms to use against equally or better armed opponents, or anyone with a little training of their own.

You did know that, right?

[littlewolf]

116. basically there are 3 types of people

wolves - bad guys ...

sheep - regular folks that figure nothing bad will happen to them
and if it does the police will protect them .... even though the police will
not get there in time ....

and sheep dogs .... those people that will not be sheep but
will protect themselves and their families from the wolves ...

[spin]

126. I often add one more class ...

Sheep with fangs.

They are people with concealed carry permits. They look harmless unless attacked.

[littlewolf]

115. !!!!

[cleanhippie]

26. Really? Is that what they are doing?

Just wanna play cowboy? How about you back up your claim with some data or facts, huh? Spewing nonsense like that only highlights your ignorance on the subject.

[Hoyt]

36. Playing "cowboy" or overly alarmed about going out in public.

The last cowboy I saw was at a restaurant and some fool comes in wearing two shoulder holsters. Funniest thing I -- or my police officer father-in-law -- has seen.

I also know folks who know every crime stat and are always telling me horror stories of some guy opening fire in Chuck-E-Cheese because some little kids were running around yelling.

What exactly is your concern of going most places in public without a gun? I understand there are times when one might be comforted with a gun, but not 95% of the places most of us are likely to go.

[spin]

45. I prefer to carry concealed ...

as open carry is illegal in Florida.

If I happen to be in the same restaurant as you, you will have no idea that I am carrying.

I also realize that if I carry a firearm with me from now until I am six feet under, there is little chance that I will ever have to use it to legally stop an attack.

Still, the possibility does exist. I buy one lotto ticket each draw, I doubt if I ever will win, I do know that if I don't buy that one ticket, I have ZERO chances of winning. I carry because there is a faint possibility that I might just find myself in a situation where the legal use of my concealed weapon is justified. I would feel like a fool if that happened and I had left my weapon at home.

[Hoyt]

49. You are more likely to need a defibrillator, but most don't carry them.

Some will feel badly too in the equally unlikely even that some innocent kid gets hit by a toter defending non-toters.

[oneshooter]

52. You have my word that I will NOT try to help you or your family

in any way.

There is that better?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoyt]

56. Thank you. I feel much safer now.

[spin]

58. Delete, responded to wrong poster (n/t)

[spin]

63. Actually I am far more likely to need a defibrillator ...

still I would like to see one incident where an "innocent kid" gets hit by a person licensed to carry.

Obviously, over time, it WILL happen.

[Euromutt]

97. Of course, AEDs typically weigh round 6 pounds...

...occupy a volume of 600-700 cubic inches in their case, and prices start around $1,000. A Glock 19 is lighter, smaller and cheaper, and markedly easier to carry in your person.

But some of us "toters," myself included, have taken training in how to use an AED (there's not much to it, the machine talks you through the process) and do pay attention to whether and where there are AEDs in buildings. And I do keep a CPR mask in the car, and of course, I carry a cell phone.

So there's some middle ground between carrying a defibrillator everywhere you go on the one hand, and completely ignoring the possibility of having to deal with SCA on the other.

[X_Digger]

53. Do you have a fire extinguisher in you home?

You are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime (1 in 50 per DoJ figures) than to have a house fire (1 in 300 per National Fire Safety Council).

How is it that taking precautions against a rare but potentially life-threatening event is sensible on one hand but not another?

There's no 'comfort' involved, either physical or mental. Carrying and effectively concealing a firearm involves changes to behavior, dress, and gait. It's downright uncomfortable to have a hunk of metal tightly bound to your body in such a way that it's concealed. Most people that I know who carry go out of their way to avoid confrontation. They know that should they become involved in any kind of altercation, they'll be held to a higher standard than your average non-licensed schmuck.

[Hoyt]

57. Have a gun in my home too. But, I don't carry it in public. Neither should most others.

[X_Digger]

60. Nice dodge.

"How is it that taking precautions against a rare but potentially life-threatening event is sensible on one hand but not another?"

Do crimes only happen at home?

[spin]

62. That's your choice ...

I have no problem with you not carrying in public.

I do. That's my decision and I am responsible for what happens if I misuse my firearm. It is a serious responsibility and I do not take it lightly.

I doubt if I will ever have to use my concealed weapon for legitimate self defense and I hope I never will have to.

People differ. Background and life experience are important. To say that most people shouldn't carry may be fair, but most people do not carry. Concealed carry has lasted a long time in our country and obviously has presented few problems. How many states who have passed concealed carry laws have repealed them? None!

[cleanhippie]

69. And thats your opinion, and its a fine one.

But your opinion is not and should not be policy for the rest of us.

[friendly_iconoclast]

85. So *your* gun is safe, but other peoples' guns aren't?

How do we know yours is safe, aside from your assurances?

[cleanhippie]

67. Really? Shot at kids in Check E. Cheese? REALLY?

I think your friends are making things up.

What is your concern with my exercising my rights?

[Hoyt]

70. If you guys think you need to pack there, it is only a matter of time before it happens.

[cleanhippie]

71. Is it really only a matter of time?

I think it is you who are now making things up.

I will ask again, What is your concern with my exercising my rights? Is it only a matter if time before I start shooting someone?


You know, you have posted nothing of value here, only inflammatory rhetoric, unsubstantiated by anything even resembling a fact. What gives?

[X_Digger]

74. The heat death of the universe is 'only a matter of time'..

.. our sun will burn out in another couple of billion years, the sky will go dark as stars collapse into cold dead rocks. Solar systems across the universe will spin away from their center and entropy will finally have won..

.. doesn't mean you should be crying in your beer over it any time soon.

We've had 20'ish years of concealed carry. Where's all the blood-in-the-streets you've been chicken-little'ing about? *hint, violent crime is at a 25 year low.

[RSillsbee]

78. Faith based argument

Do you realize that you’re presenting a completely faith based argument here? With 6 million permit holders in this country one would think that there would be all sorts of citable evidence of the things you surmise “toters’ do, if those things were the norm.
Perhaps you can present some.

I don’t carry a handgun to defend society in general; I carry a handgun to defend myself and my family. Outside of the military I have had to use a firearm for my defense twice in neither case were any shots fired. In both instances a handgun was exactly what was needed and I’m very glad I had one. I’m sure you can see how carrying a concealed handgun would draw far less attention to yourself than carrying a concealed machete

[SteveM]

113. Precisely. I mentioned upstream that self-defense is not social policy.

There seems to be a mental bloc about seeing the difference.

[Euromutt]

89. Wait; first you implied this incident did happen, now you're saying it has yet to happen?

From your post #36:

I also know folks who know every crime stat and are always telling me horror stories of some guy opening fire in Chuck-E-Cheese because some little kids were running around yelling.

And now you say "it's only a matter of time before it happens," which means such an incident has not actually occurred at this juncture; it's merely hypothetical, and that's putting it very politely.

If you have to resort to made-up scare stories to support your argument (without actually admitting they're made up, until pressed on the matter), you're going to have to accept that a number of us aren't going to be inclined to take you very seriously.

[friendly_iconoclast]

86. Are we supposed to favor secondhand gossip over statistics?

Sorry, not going to buy it.

[PavePusher]

95. Oh really?

"I also know folks who know every crime stat and are always telling me horror stories of some guy opening fire in Chuck-E-Cheese because some little kids were running around yelling."

When and where, please.

[oneshooter]

129. I FOUND YOUR EVIL COWBOY SHOOTERS!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sass+shooting&aq=f

They are in every state, and even overseas!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[slackmaster]

83. You like going to Chuck-E-Cheese?!?!?

:crazy:

[Hoyt]

96. Actually, never been in the place -- too many folks toting guns in there.

[Euromutt]

100. How would you know?

If you've never gone into one, and the "horror stories" of CCW permit holders shooting up the place have never actually happened (despite your initial strong insinuation that they had), what evidence do you have to support that assertion?

[Hoyt]

102. The poster I responded to said a toter might save my life in public -- I said BS.

That's the problem, too many toters think they are protecting society by strapping guns on their legs or whatever. They are not. We should not act like toting in public is acceptable. Might not be able to do much about it legally, but that doesn't make it "appropriate" or something we should encourage.

[slackmaster]

105. No he didn't. You introduced that fantasy yourself in reply #18.

:argh:

[Euromutt]

124. None of which is relevant to my question

You seem to have a tendency, at least in this thread, to make claims that, when pressed, you can't actually support--mainly because they're fabrications--and to then throw out a bunch of irrelevant remarks in an attempt to divert attention from the fact that your bluff has been called.

As I remarked in post #89, if you have to resort to made-up scare stories to support your argument (without actually admitting they're made up, until pressed on the matter), you're going to have to accept that a number of people--myself included--aren't going to be inclined to take you seriously. You're not improving the matter by your repeated use of variations on the term "toter," which is fairly clearly intended to be derogatory. Having to resort to ad hominems (especially pre-emptively) is a pretty good indication that you don't have anything more substantial.

What your argument comes down to is that you don't like the idea of other people carrying firearms in public. But you don't have any rational arguments to offer for why it should be prohibited; all you have is worry. The problem is that your worries apply regardless of the law, or social attitudes, about carrying firearms in public. The two most prominent examples of mass shootings in restaurants are the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre in 1984, and the Killeen Luby's massacre in 1991; both of those occurred in jurisdictions where open carry was prohibited, and concealed carry permits were "may issue." In short, places where, by and large, "toting in public" was not considered acceptable. But that didn't stop the shootings from occurring. What other incidents can I think of? How about the Brown's Chicken massacre in 1993? That happened in Palatine, Illinois; no carrying in public allowed at all. The triple homicide at that Starbucks in Georgetown in 1997? That was in D.C.; again, no carrying public permitted.

So insofar as there are examples of your worries materializing, the legal status or social acceptability of "toting in public" seems have had zero bearing on it.

[The Green Manalishi]

130. Respectfully,

I think you may be conflating two issues here.
-the question of the efficacy of a person with a firearm, concealed or not, in neutralizing a mass killer(s), ostensibly for your protection
- the argument that having large numbers of citizens carrying has an overall dampening or reducing effect on crime, particularly violent crime, in a facility/city/nation/society as a whole.

The odds of the former are vanishingly small. But then so are the odds of being killed or injured by a mass murderer, particularly one using firearms in a mall or restaurant situation. But the latter argument is quite sound, supported by the reduction of rates of violent crime as related to the ability (and presumably thus the propensity) of private citizens to carry and possess.

That in addition to the Darwinistic perspective that the corporeal termination of batterers, carjackers, robbers and rapists, when justified in self defense by a citizen, are an overall Good Thing for both the country and the gene pool; acknowledging that it is the execrable state of economic inequality; racist, misogynist and sectarian violence and hypocritical and incompetent structures, procedures and prejudices of the "justice" system that are/is the real perpetrator.

[SteveM]

109. Then at a minimum, you support concealed-carry as an alternative?

Can you point to folks who have played "cowboy" when carrying openly. There should be pictures out there of folks in properly-appointed range-riding styles.

[Euromutt]

82. The enforcement is even more selective you might think

To my understanding, to get a carry permit in NYC, you have to be a resident of the city. According to the article, Marc Anthony and J.Lo live in Nassau County, outside NYC itself. And does anyone believe Robert de Niro lives in NYC most of the time? Steven Tyler and Joe Perry of Aerosmith got issued permits, and I'd be hesitant to assume they live in NYC most of the time.

So that's another rule the NYPD is happy to bend for you, if you're rich enough.

[Ter]

101. This is illegal, and someone needs to sue

It's BS that Marc Anthony can get a permit in NYC to carry a loaded weapon and almost no one else can. He's no better than someone who is poor.